My problem with this, is that they pulled the ad because they received 203 complaints over a 1 week period.
As I previously pointed out, even if the ad only ran once, that would make it 1 complaint per 30,000 ITV viewers. But as it is, you have to take the viewing figures and expand it to cover the whole week.
They are catering to a small group of bigots, so I won't buy their shit anymore.
The rule of thumb is 1.5gb for a full length porn video and 700mb for a normal movie.
I would say the average size is 7-8inches erect - infact about 8 inches.
The average size for an erect penis around the world is 6.02 inches, according to the most recent studies I can find.
I love sex with men and have dated both men and women, but I really couldn't see myself settling down or having a long term relationship with a guy.
Why?!
Do you feel that gay relationships are inferior?
she was actually his fluffer and was cheering him on because he was getting $4000 to fuck a man, where he only gets $500 for a hetero flick.
I was reading an article while looking up something else that had a mini interview with "one of gay porn's hottest stars" {unnamed in the article because the producer wanted to keep up the mystique} that said the guy made 10,000 Euros for doing gay porn while making only 750 Euros for making hetero porn. He watches his wife off screen playing with herself so he can keep it up while fucking a guy.
I forget why, but grapes in quantity can kill dogs…....info from my vet
It's the seeds that are toxic to dogs and cats. They can flush the toxins from their system, but like with humans, it takes a while to do it.
Grapes themselves, in high amounts, can cause diarrhea, which in turn can cause dehydration. This can happen from pretty much any fruit, especially the soft types.
Four of those who took part were diagnosed as HIV positive soon after.
I've found some info on this that shows how much of a non story full of hype it is.
Apparently, they were diagnosed less than a week after the video shoot weekend. All the "models" {7 of them} who were to be in the next video shoot were tested the following Tuesday. That gives, at most, 5 days for them to have been infected during the shoot and test positive. Looking at medical websites {AMA, BMA, etc} the the earliest detection is at 25 days, but that is rare. It usually takes 3 to 6 months to detect it.
The four of them had sex scenes in 2 pairs and 1 three way amongst themselves, so no others were at risk.
All four are/were "rent boys" in London and 3 are/were porn veterans, while 1 was a porn "virgin" until that video shoot weekend.
Unfortunately, I can't find out the name of the videos or the actors involved to get more info. ![😕](https://community.gaytorrent.ru/assets/plugins/nodebb-plugin-emoji/emoji/apple/1f615.png?v=hvqg2qn0nb4 ":-\")
The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signature to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.
The Sec of State certified the petition, so the amendment to ban gay marriage will be on the November ballot.
Of the 27 states that have had an amendment ballot to ban gay marriage, only Arizona was able to defeat the amendment.
hXXp://new.petitiononline.com/heinz/petition.html
That's the petition site to put the ad back on tv.
from ZeroPaid.com
Charter Communications Won't Track User Web Traffic After All
Cites customer concerns, but most likely of political pressure by several leading congressional representatives.
A little over a month ago I reported how Charter Communications planned to begin tracking customer internet traffic for resale to a targeted advertising firm. The plan, which was set to begin testing was early as next month in four markets before going systemwide, immediately drew condemnation from customers, privacy advocates, and congressmen from the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), chairman, and Joe Barton (R-TX) wrote to Neil Smit, Charter's president and chief executive officer, soon after the plan was announced, asking him to put it on hold until the three could discuss the matter.
Yesterday, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal also called on Charter to drop the plan.
"The arrangement raises strikingly significant questions, such as what other uses will be made of this highly sensitive information and what measures Charter Communications is taking to safeguard such information," Blumenthal said.
Then today came word that Charter plans to drop the plan in response to the privacy concerns raised by customers.
"Our customers are always our first priority," Charter said. "We will continue to take a thoughtful, deliberate approach with the goal to ultimately structure an advertising service that enhances the Internet experience for our customers and addresses questions and concerns they've raised."
Certainly garnering the scrutiny of the CHAIRMAN of the House Subcommittee on Telcos and the Internet played a part in their decision as well.
"Charter engaged in quick political damage control" in its decision to drop the Web tracking, said Jeff Chester of the consumer rights organization Center for Digital Democracy.
Either way, at least customers can breathe easier knowing their ISP isn't logging all their traffic. Even if it's only for targeted advertising it's a nonetheless a source of data that could then be subpoenaed or monitored by third parties like the RIAA, MPAA, you name it.
from ZeroPaid.com
Japanese ISP Limits Uploads to 30GB per Day
Targets customers using their connections as file-sharing servers.
Data caps seem to be where ISPs are heading these days in lieu of interfering with certain types of traffic, notably BitTorrent, since the practice understandably raises questions about privacy and network neutrality.
Here in the US Comcast is reported to be looking at consumption-based billing plans similar to what Time Warner began testing out a few week ago in Beaumont, Texas. There customers must choose from packages that range from $29.95 p/month for a 768kbps connection and a 5GB monthly cap to $54.90 p/month for a 15mbps connection and a 40GB cap. They are also charged an additional $1 for each GB that exceeds their limit.
It's not nearly as dramatic as a 5GB monthly cap, but nonetheless NTT Communications, one of Japan's largest ISPs, has announced that starting August 1st its carriers will soon impose a daily upload limit of 30GB. Downloads will continue to be unlimited.
At an average of 700MB per XVID movie on file-sharing sites that equates to a max upload of around 42 movies per day!
It isn't possible to really even come close to that sort of data cap here in the US. My connection, for example, sports the best available residential plan of 12Mbps DL and 1Mbps UL. Japan, on the other hand, has been busy laying fiber optic network connections that allow NTT and other ISPs to offer DL and UL speeds at an incredible 100Mbps for a measly $46 USD per month.
Sickening isn't it?
NTT's data cap is obviously a response to file-sharers daring to actually use purchased bandwidth, but with connection speeds of 100Mbps($#@%?!!) it's hard to feel sympathetic.
from TorrentFreak.com
BitTorrent Users Refuse To Pay Copyright Fines
During the last couple of years, hundreds of people have received letters from lawyers demanding compensation for the alleged uploading of copyright works. Their demands state that if you dont pay up, you will be taken to court and dealt with severely. However, when people refuse to pay - nothing happens.
Back in March 2007 it became apparent that it would now be the turn of UK citizens to receive threatening letters for claimed breach of copyright. A team consisting of lawyers Davenport Lyons, anti-piracy tracking company Logistep and several games publishers such as Zuxxez/Topware and CodeMasters started sending letters to those it accused of unauthorized distribution of their products - otherwise known as uploading. The most persistent cases are those featuring the games Dream Pinball 3D, Colin McRae Dirt and Call of Juarez.
In their letters, Davenport Lyons adopt a very serious tone, as they threaten to take peoples homes away, should they be unable to pay their fines. Of course, not many people like this tone, and they can get very indignant in the face of it. Needless to say - guilty or not - some people are sufficiently annoyed and simply refuse to pay. Others refuse to pay for different reasons - TorrentFreak is in touch with a few of them.
The reasons for non-payment vary, but some simply dont have the money. Tania told us: Im a single mom and my son mustve done this but I dont have £600 ($1200). I cant pay it, I dont have that sort of money. Paul, who works a 70 hour week on two jobs explained that he is massively in debt with credit cards and the demands for cash from Davenport just go on the pile with the others. None of these people have been taken to court.
Others are refusing to pay because they are innocent. Even though Davenport insist that its anti-piracy tracking partner Logistep is faultless in its data-gathering, its generally accepted that anti-piracy companies are using systems which can produce bad data. Only last week researchers managed to get infringement notices sent to printers, devices incapable of committing such an act. Davenport insists - rather like BPI chief executive Geoff Taylor - that if the High Court thought the evidence was compelling enough to order the ISP to give up the personal details of the alleged sharer, then the data must be accurate. If that is the case, how come Davenport havent taken anyone to court or asked Logistep to take up the offers they received to have their system independently audited? That would surely boost their credibility. Or not.
TorrentFreak spoke with many people who are obviously wrongly accused for various reasons. Were pretty sure that Lucy, a 67 year old grandmother of 8, had no interest in Colin McRae Dirt, and that Peter, a 21 year old student who used to have a game-loving flat-mate, is completely innocent. What about Jason, a father of four who was in the Middle East at the time of the alleged infringement, or Joanne who had probably been running a wide-open wireless router for the best part of two years - in a building of around 60 residents? As with the other group, none of these people have been taken to court.
One man, Stuart, has been corresponding with Davenport Lyons for many months now over claims his uncle with whom he lives, infringed copyright on Colin McRae Dirt. The Internet account is in his uncles name, but his uncle never uses the computer, so the wrong person was accused immediately and Stuart vigorously denies all accusations too.
After many letters sent to Davenport last year, where Stuart (on behalf of his uncle) denied all allegations, with Davenport duly ignoring most points and reiterating that if he didnt pay hed be going to court (each time giving only a few days to stop the court action), everything went dead. Then a couple of months ago, déjà vue kicked in as a letter dropped through the door which seemed to start from the beginning again, essentially stating that if he didnt pay, court papers would be prepared and he would be incurring huge costs, etc.
Stuart wrote back, re-iterated his total innocence, and reminded Davenport that endless correspondence was getting them nowhere while they insist he is guilty, and he insists he is not. They wrote back and reminded him (again) that they were going to start court proceedings if he didnt pay. He hasnt paid and they have not taken him to court. Again.
Stuart is not unique in receiving lots of letters, lots of threats and then - nothing. TorrentFreak is in touch with nearly 40 people accused in these cases and not one of them has been taken to court, in some cases more than 15 months after these people apparently had 14 days to pay up or else.
Its not clear if Davenport Lyons has completely given up on taking anyone to court, they may still surprise us. Its believed they did win one case when someone they accused didnt turn up in court but all the indications point to a stalemate on the outstanding cases, including those of Stuart, Lucy, Peter, Jason, Joanne and countless others.
Its thought that around 40% to 50% of people who received letters have paid up, and maybe thats enough for the operation to be profitable for Davenport. Taking people to court in the UK for such a small infringement is definitely unprofitable. Maybe this is the greatest indicator as to where these cases are going to end up when the defiant, penniless and innocent refuse to pay.
from TorrentFreak.com
Azureus is Dead, Vuze Goes Social
After 5 years, the popular BitTorrent client Azureus is no more. The Vuze team has officially abandoned the Azureus name and the new social BitTorrent client is now completely integrated into the Vuze content distribution platform.
The first version of the Java based BitTorrent client Azureus was released in June 2003, and soon became popular among the early adopters of BitTorrent. Over the years, Azureus turned into one of the most feature-rich clients, backed by a dedicated team of developers and an active community.
Things changed in 2006 when Azureus launched the content distribution platform it called Vuze (aka Zudeo), backed up by a total of $34 million venture capital. For a while, they kept releasing a no-Vuze version of Azureus (when Vuze/Zudeo was in Beta), but Vuze CEO, Gilles BianRosa told TorrentFreak that this only caused confusion among their users.
We started to change our name from Azureus to Vuze over a year ago, but we did not make the change in a clear or consistent manner, Gilles said. This has caused a great deal of confusion amongst our users. We want to rectify this situation by changing our name to Vuze consistently.
Whilst we recognize the strength of the Azureus name and the frog, it is only associated with our original BitTorrent application. As we move towards creating an all-in-one application for finding, playing and sharing great content, that goes beyond the realm of just a BitTorrent client, we wanted to change our name to reflect that, but bring with us the frog who is such a part of our heritage, Gilles added.
Today {16 June 08}, Vuze comes with a brand new release of their client (v3.1), introducing several new features. One of the most drastic changes is the new social layer that has been added to the client. Vuze users are now able to add friends, share torrents with friends, and give friends a speed boost when you are downloading the same torrent.
The new client also includes a meta-search engine that allows you to search across several popular BitTorrent sites, in addition to content from Vuze.com. The search functionality is completely customizable, so you can add you personal favorite if its not already included.
Unfortunately, there will not be a Vuze client available without the Vuze platform integrated. Gilles told TorrentFreak: We are focusing our efforts on delivering against our vision of creating an all-in-one application that enables users to find, download, play and share in one streamlined application.
We have started on a path of creating an all-in-one application that enables users to find, play and share torrents. In particular, we believe that by enabling users to share content and bandwidth through the Friends feature we are adding a completely new dimension to peer-to-peer - a new social dimension, or what we call social P2P, Gilles said.
Azureus is no more, the name change is permanent. On the one hand this is a step forward, as the new interface and functionality will appeal to new users. However, it has also caused quite a heated debate among both developers and users who were happy with the classic UI. Although, its a bit hidden, the original interface still remains accessible with the UI switcher. Time will tell if it is the right move.
from TorrentFreak.com
3-Strikes Law to Disconnect French Pirates
Over the past few months, many countries have looked into the possibility of disconnecting file-sharers from the Internet. Today, France is the first to present their new 3-strikes law, which allows anti-piracy outfits such as IFPI, RIAA and MPAA to police the Internet.
A few weeks after the University of Washington showed that copyright infringement warnings are based on reckless tactics, France announces to use these notices to disconnect pirates from the Internet. The warning emails, sent by anti-piracy organizations, often carry the force of law with an ISP, despite being a blind unproven accusation. Lobby groups have pushed for these notices to be all the evidence needed for punishment in some countries, and France is the latest to follow the lobby money, with a 3-strikes law just proposed.
The new legislation will make it possible to disconnect people from the Internet, if they receive more than two copyright infringement warnings. The warnings will be sent out by the ISPs, solely based on data gathered by anti-piracy organizations.
Christine Albanel, the French Minister of Culture presented the new bill today. She hopes the bill will significant reduce online piracy, and is quoted as saying at a press conference: We know that we are not going to eradicate piracy 100 percent, but we think that we can reduce it significantly. President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has spoken out in favor of the new legislation before, backed the Minister, and commented: There is no reason that the Internet should be lawless.
If the new bill passes, anti-piracy organizations will be in complete control of the Internet subscriptions of French citizens. There will be a new agency that will forward their complaints to ISPs, who will then send out the warning emails. One of the major problems is, however, that the data gathering techniques, as used by IFPI, MPAA and RIAA, are far from accurate.
Interestingly, the French law goes directly against the European Parliament who, this April, condemned state plans to authorize the disconnection of suspected file-sharers from the Internet. European Parliament said that disconnecting petty file-sharers would be conflicting with civil liberties and human rights and with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness.
The controversial bill will come before parliament this autumn, and if it passes, the new legislation will become effective on January 1st, 2009.
from TorrentFreak.com
Swedes To Be Wiretapped, Despite Protests
Despite public protests both online and on the streets of Stockholm, the Swedish parliament has voted in favor of a new wiretapping law which invades the privacy of its citizens by allowing the government to monitor web traffic and phone calls, without the need for court orders or similar authorization.
On Wednesday evening the Swedish parliament voted yes to a bill that allows FRA, National Defense Radio Agency, to monitor all phone traffic and e-mail traffic in the name of national security. Unlike the police, FRA can listen in on anyone for any purpose without a court order, bringing the level of personal integrity in Sweden to an all-time-low.
The bill was passed after it was debated in parliament, with 143 votes in favor, 138 opposed and 1 representative abstaining. Before the debate the situation was crystal clear. The four party government alliance would win the vote if all party members voted in favor of the bill, but with the seven seat majority the government currently holds, only four representatives had to vote against the party line in order for the bill to fail.
With all the editorials and statements regarding integrity, copyright and online-rights published during the last months by members of these parties, surely there would be four members of the parties that would follow their convictions rather than the party line? In fact, there were four representatives who have been crystal clear in these kinds of issues: Birgitta Ohlsson (Liberal Party), Karl Sigfrid (Moderate Party), Annie Johansson and Fredrick Federley (both Centre Party). They have profiled themselves on these issues and in some cases even campaigned on them. Surely, Fredrick Federley couldnt let down his everyone of his voters?
Things proved more complex.
Leading up to Tuesdays debate, the bill had been heavily criticized by journalists, pirates, lawyers, bloggers, all political parties youth organizations - as well as the head of the Swedish intelligence agency Säpo. Rick Falkvinge of The Pirate Party was one of the voices that spoke most strongly against the bill. Also, all of the four daily newspapers senior political editors were heavily opposed. Rumours had begun circulating that Karl Sigfrid was indeed going to vote against the bill while Fredrick Federley wrote an ambivalent blog post that indicated where this was heading.
The debate was intense with defense minister Sten Tolgfors of the Moderate Party showing his arrogance, ignorance and lack of understanding time and again (if the bill was not passed, he said, parliament would be risking the lives of Swedish UN troops in Afghanistan).
Towards the end of the debate, Fredrick Federley was on the speakers list. He pulled off a tear-filled act (including sentimentalities about his mother) in which he said he had to follow his conviction but at the same time didnt want to let his party down. He motioned for the bill to be sent back to parliaments defense committee for expanding the safeguards of individual rights. This was a carefully orchestrated piece of political theater designed to keep the government alliance together while at the same time allow the Centre Party (which until yesterday held high integrity and online rights) not to lose face. At this time, Federley knew that the bill was being reworked on an initiative from the Liberal Party to a new version that had a new authority controlling the controllers.
The original vote was due to be held on Wednesday morning and following an initiative from The Pirate Party, a crowd of hundreds was gathered in front of parliament to protest the bill and try to convince representatives to vote against it. The crowd was a mixture of pirates, the journalists union, the political parties youth organizations and worried citizens. Following the debate on Tuesday, the morning vote only considered if the bill should be sent back for revision and the vote was in favor.
In a farce of democracy, it was announced that the bill was to be revised in record time and a new vote be taken later in the evening. I think the law needs to be re-written. It is not enough to create a few checks and balances It is the law itself there is something wrong with, Anders Eriksson, former Chief of Swedish intelligence agency Säpo, told Swedish radio before the vote.
By now, Fredrick Federley and Annie Johansson of the Centre Party had put themselves in a position where they could show to their voters that they had improved the bill while at the same time they could vote for the revised version to the happiness and joy of their party colleagues. So, what about the other possible nay-sayers?
According to the buzz on the blogs, Karl Sigfrid of the Moderate Party had decided to vote against the bill and was taken into a party meeting where 30 representatives from the Moderate Party along with party leader and Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt were on a speech list, bashing him one after the other until he couldnt take it anymore.
And the remaining? Birgitta Ohlsson of the Liberal Party was as lame as her Centre Party counterparts: She abstained her vote, according to an interview in Dagens Nyheter with respect to my liberal consciousness and to my voters but also to my party colleagues.
When the FRA bill version 1.01 was brought back into the chamber on Wednesday evening, the outcome could only go one way. The Government parties along with PM Fredrik Reinfeldt had decided that this bill should go through and with the internal critics effectively silenced the bill was voted through, plunging Sweden into DDR era lack of privacy. How the bill is compatible with Human Rights (The right to respect privacy, family, home and correspondence) will be decided later in the court of the European Union where a number of opposition representatives will bring it to be tried.
The only liberal voting according to her ideology rather than her party line was Camilla Lindberg of the Liberal Party. In an editorial in todays Expressen she explains why: My loyalty is with my voters. And with myself and my conviction. I couldnt get myself to vote in favour of the bill, regardless of the arguments from my colleagues and the last-minutes improvements. […] If the surveillance poses a threat for integrity and freedom without having a proved positive effect, I cant support such a bill.
Welcome to 1984
.
from TorrentFreak.com
Joss Stone: Piracy is Brilliant, Music Should be Shared
They are quite rare events but on occasion, artists actually encourage fans to share their music online. Singer Joss Stone has no problem doing so at all. In fact, after a recent concert in Argentina she said that piracy is brilliant.
Joss Stone, who won a Grammy last year, loves music, but hates the the music industry. In a recent interview she said that - unlike herself - most artists are brainwashed by the industry, and she encouraged people to share her music.
After the show a reporter asked her what she thinks of piracy, and people who download her songs off the Internet. Her response baffled the reporter, as she simply told him: I think its great There was an awkward silence for a few seconds, the reporter probably expected to hear something else from her. Great?, he said.
Yeah, I love it. I think its brilliant and Ill tell you why, Stone continued. Music should be shared. […] The only part about music that I dislike is the business that is attached to it. Now, if music is free, then there is no business, there is just music. So, I like it, I think that we should share.
Its ok, if one person buys it, its totally cool, burn it up, share it with your friends, I dont care. I dont care how you hear it as long as you hear it. As long as you come to my show, and have a great time listening to the live show its totally cool. I dont mind. Im happy that they hear it.
Stone went on to say that most artists have probably been brainwashed by the record labels, when they discourage their fans from downloading music. Of course, Stone is not the only artist who actually wants people to share their work. Last year rapper 50 Cent made some positive remarks about filesharing, and Nine Inch Nails takes it even further, as they upload their music onto BitTorrent sites themselves.
These artists are spot on, in fact, several studies have shown that artists actually benefit from filesharing. The more music people share, the more CDs they buy and the more concerts they visit.
from TorrentFreak.com
UK Government Holds a Gun to the Head of ISPs Over P2P
The British government appears to be running out of patience with ISPs as they struggle to come to an agreement with the music industry on P2P music piracy. One top-level ISP executive says The British government just put a gun to our head. Major ISPs are now in serious talks with the music industry.
Recently we reported on the agreement between UK ISP Virgin Media and the British Phonographic Industry to start sending out warnings to Virgins subscribers who the BPI accuse of uploading copyright music. Now, according to a Digital Music News report, the British government has started urgently applying pressure to prominent ISPs to find a solution to the problem of file-sharing. The pressure includes a threat to bring in new laws, should ISPs and the music industry not come to a solution of their own.
The government previously set a deadline of April 2009 for the parties to reach an agreement but according to sources, pressure is intensifying to deal with the issue sooner. A top-level executive gave an indication of the level of pressure stating: The British government just put a gun to our head.
According to what DMN describe as top-level and other executive sources, the music industry and major ISPs including BT, Carphone Warehouse, Tiscali and Virgin Media are now involved in serious negotiations over how to deal with what they perceive to be a serious threat to their business model.
Andy Burnham, Culture Secretary and Labour Member of Parliament is said to be playing a prominent role after tough comments earlier in the year: Let me make it absolutely clear: this is a change of tone from the government, Burnham told the FT. Its definitely serious legislative intent.
At the London Calling event last week - billed as the UKs premier international music business event - sources confirmed meetings between the music industry and ISPs. Its believed that ISPs are being negotiated with individually, rather than as a group. All of the ISPs are at the table meeting with the rights holders, but its not a roundtable, said a source.
Current CEO of British Music Rights and former pop star Feargal Sharkey said he was optimistic at the discussions between the music industry and ISPs: At this moment, I am completely optimistic. Three months ago these guys wouldnt even get into the same room.
Its unclear what could happen if the music industry and ISPs fail to reach an agreement, as Culture Secretary Andy Burnham has already stepped back from a government implemented 3 strikes and youre out policy.
For their part, ISPs are only too aware of the profit they make from file-sharers. If the latest reports are to be believed, around 6 million Brits use their internet connection for file-sharing. Alienating them could be a huge strategic error.
From TorrentFreak.com
MPAA Says It Doesnt Need Evidence to Convict Pirates
Only a few weeks ago, a University of Washington study showed showed how inaccurate the MPAA and RIAAs evidence gathering techniques are. Now, instead of improving their pirate chasing tactics, the MPAA simply claims they dont need any evidence to bankrupt alleged copyright infringers.
Threat Level reports that the MPAA now argues that it has the right to demand up to $150,000 in damages per illegally downloaded file, without having to proof that someone actually downloaded that file.
Yes we know, this doesnt make sense at all. Luckily, MPAA lawyer Marie van Uitert explains why copyright holders should be able to claim thousands of dollars without having to proove that a copyright infringement actually took place. In a brief submitted this Friday, as part of the ongoing making available debate in the Jammie Thomas case, Van Uitert writes:
It is often very difficult, and in some cases, impossible, to provide such direct proof when confronting modern forms of copyright infringement, whether over P2P networks or otherwise; understandably, copyright infringers typically do not keep records of infringement.
So, the MPAA is basically saying that is is too hard to come up with solid evidence, and because of this, they should not have to proove anything. Makes perfect sense doesnt it? The MPAA wrote the brief in response to a request from a federal Judge last month, who called for a briefing on the claim that having files stored in shared folders infringes copyright.
The MPAA of course argues that keeping files in a shared folder does equal distribution, and they also make the argument that filesharers authorize others to download these files. Luckily there were also briefs submitted by the EFF, and several professors who argued against this. It is now up to the Judge to decide whos right and wrong.
Heinz ran a tv ad that had 2 men kissing {a small peck on the lips} for 1 week before pulling it after receiving 200 complaints in the UK.
The ad was run on ITV and even if all 200 complaints were from the same night, that's 1 complaint per 30,000 viewers.
You can send them an email by going to hXXp://www.heinz.com/corporate_contact.aspx and filling out the form.
I will no longer be buying any of their products, because they are more concerned with the opinions of bigots over the millions of their gay customers worldwide.
Here's the google page for the topic; hXXp://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=heinz+pulls+tv+ad&btnG=Google+Search&meta=